Personal accountability and the Maldonado/Schutlz case

I have been reading various posts and blogs on the internet recently that espouse support for Matthew Maldonado and Nicholas Schultz. I will tell you right now, the reader, that this is an opinion/editorial piece. Hell is too good of a place for these two men as far as I'm concerned. They are scum of the earth. Let me explain why by defining the concept of personal accountability.

Say you choose to drink to the point that you are legally intoxicated, and subsequently get in your car to drive your residence. During the trip home, you hit and kill another driver. Is it the other driver's fault that you killed them? What if the other driver had also been drinking? Does that lessen your guilt?

If you replies that it does, you need a lesson in critical thinking. The moment that you choose to get behind the wheel in an impaired state, you are guilty of putting other drivers/bicyclists/pedestrians/deer/random squirrels in danger. If you were sober and alert, then you could argue that person you hit shared some of the blame. Because you're completely sober and fully alert, you are as prepared as you can be to deal with other people's stupidity. When this is not the case, you are no longer prepared and must accept responsibility for your mistakes.

Allow me a personal and exceedingly mundane example to illustrate my point. I recently went to a job located in downtown Austin. I parked on the street in an area that required to pay the meter in order to park. The owner of the building told me that commercial vehicles like mine were exempt from paying for parking. She was wrong. I found this out when I got a parking ticket. My van was clearly marked as a commercial vehicle. My helper tried to argue with the person issuing the ticket. I immediately told him to stop. I took the building owner's word without checking the veracity of her statement. It was my fault for doing so. No one held a gun to my head and told me that I had to park there, or that I must take the owner's word as gospel.

This point brings me to back around to the despicable men that raped and abused Lloyd Irvin's female student, Nicholas Schultz and Matthew Maldonado. The justice system failed the plaintiff in a spectacular fashion because the jury did not understand the ramifications of these men's crime. They were instructors at Lloyd Irvin's school. As such, they bore a responsibility to care for their students. Those who don't train combat arts will never understand this. The sweat and blood a person invests in their gym is not to be taken lightly. Instructor's bear a special duty to honor and care for this investment. By doing so, they treat their students efforts in a respectful manner that encourages growth on everyone's part.

These two men, Matthew Maldonado and Nicholas Schultz, could not have violated this trust in a more heinous manner. A student asked them, two of her instructors, men she trusted with her personal safety, to provide her with safe passage home. Instead they brutalized her. Not worse, but equally horrible, they let her head and body strike the ground repeatedly. Then they left her on the cold concrete of a parking garage on a 55 degrees Fahrenheit night.

Now, some cretins have argued that the lady in question was asking for it, due to her intoxicated state. To those troglodytes, I ask this, if your mother was sick and incoherent, would you take advantage of her by emptying her wallet and leaving her out in the cold? No? Then ask yourself, what is the difference in the behavior of these two monsters who took advantage of the plaintiff in this case.

The justice system failed the plaintiff in a spectacular fashion because the jury did not understand the ramifications of these men's crime. They were instructors at Lloyd Irvin's school. As such, they bore a responsibility to care for their students. Those who don't train combat arts will never understand this.

Is it the jury's job to understand these ramifications? And do these ramifications have any bearing on the question of whether or not Maldonado's and Schultz's actions meet the legal definition of rape in Maryland?

Is it the jury's job to understand these ramifications? And do these ramifications have any bearing on the question of whether or not Maldonado's and Schultz's actions meet the legal definition of rape in Maryland?

In some states there are laws prohibiting sexual contact between teachers and their minor students. Typically these are strict liability crimes that are used when a teacher sleeps with a high school student, or a prison guard sleeps with an inmate, and the sex was "consentual" even though the student or prisoner did not have the ability to truly consent to the encounter. (Due to age/power position of guard)

The law does not recognize such a legal application to an adult student in a martial arts program, so more traditional sexual assault laws are used.

It appears from Georgette's blog, that at some point during the assualt the victim moved towards the perp, and the defence attorneys claimed this indicated she was consenting, and vola, a "reason" was created that allowed the Jury to find reasonable doubt.

I really can't express how scummy these two defendants are, even though it appears they both evaded conviction.

I don't deny their scumminess. It just seems like JNP is suggesting that the jury's inability to understand the perspective of a martial arts competitor directly affected the outcome of the trial in a way that amounts to a failure of the system.

I don't buy it; either there is doubt about whether or not these two men committed rape or there isn't. And that hinges on the available information about the incident itself and the legal definition of rape in Maryland. This other stuff about them being instructors doesn't really enter into it.

Any chance of putting these two scumbags up as Douche Bag of the Month with links to the BS thread, Georgette's blog and some of the other relevant sites? Thinking of Google ranking here.

My heart goes out to the young lady. These two are animals of the lowest sort.

And to Loyd Irvin-

Your actions in dealing with the publicity of this and your years earlier participation in another rape scene have let the world know your true colors.

edited to add

Sam and Georgette,

Has there, to your knowledge, been a fund started wherein the young lady can pursue this through the civil courts? I'm guessing she could attain attorney fees fairly quickly, given the outrage and support within the bjj/ma community.

I don't deny their scumminess. It just seems like JNP is suggesting that the jury's inability to understand the perspective of a martial arts competitor directly affected the outcome of the trial in a way that amounts to a failure of the system.

I don't buy it; either there is doubt about whether or not these two men committed rape or there isn't. And that hinges on the available information about the incident itself and the legal definition of rape in Maryland. This other stuff about them being instructors doesn't really enter into it.

I don't know...as instructors they have a certain status within the group, which possibly gave them more opportunity to take advantage of this student (I.e., she was more likely to trust them initially, maybe?)...I think its a relevant point for discussion, even if it doesn't have the same legal meaning as when discussing minor students...

Has there, to your knowledge, been a fund started wherein the young lady can pursue this through the civil courts? I'm guessing she could attain attorney fees fairly quickly, given the outrage and support within the bjj/ma community.

She has a good chance of winning in civil court, since the burden of proof is more forgiving -- preponderance of the evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt -- but what is she likely to get out it after several years of more litigation, having to relive the incident again and again? Not that there could ever be real compensation for what they did, but I doubt these guys have the resources to even try to compensate.

She has a good chance of winning in civil court, since the burden of proof is more forgiving -- preponderance of the evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt -- but what is she likely to get out it after several years of more litigation, having to relive the incident again and again? Not that there could ever be real compensation for what they did, but I doubt these guys have the resources to even try to compensate.

Sure, she's likely to get little to no money, at least in the short term. She would, if she won and very likely would given the difference in criminal vs civil burden of proof you point out above, have the satisfaction of winning on that front.

At that point, she'd have a stake in their future earnings. Probably not much and admittedly, collecting is another matter. Bigger picture would be that they lose and their claims of innocence are negated for life.

While they'll get little actual money from OJ, the Brown and Goldman families do have the satisfaction that the bastard did lose in the civil case.

Sure, she's likely to get little to no money, at least in the short term. She would, if she won and very likely would given the difference in criminal vs civil burden of proof you point out above, have the satisfaction of winning on that front.

At that point, she'd have a stake in their future earnings. Probably not much and admittedly, collecting is another matter. Bigger picture would be that they lose and their claims of innocence are negated for life.

While they'll get little actual money from OJ, the Brown and Goldman families do have the satisfaction that the bastard did lose in the civil case.